Net Neutrality

[Schnitzer318is]

you do realize you've made my argument, right?

I haven't argued there is competition, I've argued regulating the internet like a utility is the surest way to kill the possibility of competition. This is exactly what Obama tried to do.

Do you know how long Google has been trying to get fiber infrastructure installed here? I proved MY point. You didn't post anything to the contrary. Just threw out a talking point about Obama regulating the internet... which yes, he did. And we were better for it.

The internet NEEDS to be regulated like a utility. Because it's just as important as one. Title 2 does not say that the only ISP available is run by a local municipality. Just that the infrastructure that serves that purpose is available to all competition. The fact there is no competition is the reason we need the regulation. If it were a fair market... I'd be on your side. And the IBM analogy is woefully unequivocal.

Title 2 also provides for a method of thwarting internet fast lanes, content blocking, etc, etc. When you buy electricity, do you want your service provider to say you can't use that electricity to run power tools while you work on your car? To do that you have pay for an extra "workman's" package. Sounds ridiculous right? Well the ISP's have done, want to do, and will do more. The only thing that stopped them in the past was Title 2.

Either you need to do more research into this issue, or you are not someone who gives a damn about the quality of service, availability of, and access to the internet. Instead of researching you are just touting the party line and throwing out your long held philosophies. I have no problem with belief systems... but like anything else in life they need to be reevaluated for relevance and applicability from time to time.

[gwb72tii]

Man I can't wait for Google fiber to get here.

you do realize you've made my argument, right?

I haven't argued there is competition, I've argued regulating the internet like a utility is the surest way to kill the possibility of competition. This is exactly what Obama tried to do.

[Schnitzer318is]

sorry but your argument has been disproved by history. Go tell IBM that they were so big there could be no competitive threat to their dominance in tech.

you all put so little faith in capitalism. you all want a fix now as if the tech we have (yes even the internet) is frozen and will never change. LOL

Come on George. A capitalist market is supposed to work no matter the technology. It is supposed to evolve (and benefit consumers) through competition. Which we have none of. It's basic economics.

What we have now is some perversion of capitalism which has no competition. And worse competition is being stifled, thus hampering development and improvement. Again, it's basic economics. Anyone with eyes can see the problem. We have 2 choices for ISP's where I live. And I'm one of the "lucky" ones. Most have 1.

Man I can't wait for Google fiber to get here.

[z31maniac]

sorry but your argument has been disproved by history. Go tell IBM that they were so big there could be no competitive threat to their dominance in tech.

you all put so little faith in capitalism. you all want a fix now as if the tech we have (yes even the internet) is frozen and will never change. LOL

Does your family understand you aren't coherent?

I live in the 25th largest city in the country, I have one choice for internet.

How is that competition?

[gwb72tii]

I share the same ideology. And if we were allowed to have a capitalist style economy in all industries... that would be wonderful. We aren't, and so we can't. Companies have gotten too large and branched out into too many different industries under the same corporate umbrella through DEREGULATION. And it's been allowed to happen through deregulation. Once companies get large enough it is almost impossible to have a startup succeed and give true competition to the current monopoly company/companies.

sorry but your argument has been disproved by history. Go tell IBM that they were so big there could be no competitive threat to their dominance in tech.

you all put so little faith in capitalism. you all want a fix now as if the tech we have (yes even the internet) is frozen and will never change. LOL

[Wschnitz]

^Well said.

sleeve and oldguy...............I'm looking forward to a non-coherent rant from both of you. Drink first if you need to, don't disappoint me.

I feel like they regularly mistake capitalism for being inherently favorable to competition too, ignoring that a truly capitalist society can be completely bought out and price fixed. Like it already is.

[z31maniac]

^Well said.

sleeve and oldguy...............I'm looking forward to a non-coherent rant from both of you. Drink first if you need to, don't disappoint me.

[Schnitzer318is]

You have valid points I dont disagree to a certain extent and a title I classification would be a step in a better direction IMO. All that said, haow about some alternate perspective to some of your "assumptions" and also why the govt steeping in and killing any incentive to actually try to compete.

Net Neutrality actually took away any incentive for service providers to run broadband connections to remote/rural locations. Because in most cases it costs more to run and maintain than revpenue it generates (thats why EVERYONE pays a fee that helped pay to run phone service to remote area a service which costs far less money to provide).......broadband would be even more costly by a very large margin.

So who would benefit from this at the carriers expense? Places like Amazon, Net Flix etc....while the ISPs who spend all the money to provide the infrastructure lose money. Allowing the carriers to better manage bandwidth allows them to provide better service to those current existing customers.

Telecom infrastructure is FUCKING expensive, especially fiber. The fewer subscribers per mile the less revenue to recover on that cost of hardware and installation . Thats exactly why you see better higher bandwidth service in densely populated areas. Existing copper has finite bandwidth capacity (like you find in remote areas that have not had large amounts of development that would have required large upgrades. Replacing copper with fiber carries not only the high cost to string on the poles or trench/plow/bore it in ..but also the equipment that is associated with it at every stage of the game form install to general up keep and maintenance.


True its all being replaced as required when the equipment and lines approach end of life...but thats also why the remote areas are the last to see this sort of stuff. No carrier has the capital to throw at major upgrades that take YEARS and couple hundred billion to get accomplished when you consider how many millions of miles of cable thats out there...both above and below ground.


I live in one of those areas, where our DSL in front of my house is 85 a month for 1.5mbs Down 0.5 up. Thats IF and i stress highly IF you can get off the waiting list and get a service slot. We have to use satellite ISP at 130 a month for 50gb. I am all for some competition maybe the smaller local outfit will start to better serve my house

^Your understanding of the current state of ISP's and their business practices is not on target with reality. ALL of the points in your position are incorrect.

The ISP's are only now spending SOME money (NOT ALL) of the money they collected from their consumer base (under the 96 Telecom Act) to expand infrastructure... and only because of the direct threat of Google's fiber service. Competition good right? But they are being allowed to block Google's expansion in most places, and delay it in most others. Sounding like antitrust yet? How about blocking municipalities from starting local ISP's, or preventing states from making their own net neutrality laws? All of this is happening NOW and was under title 2 as well. The telecoms are not hurting... and now under title 1 they can merge to be even larger and more monopolistic.

The money is already collected for all of us, including you in rural areas, to have fiber to the home. The current infrastructure (and competition) in the ISP sector is garbage. Do some reading... plenty of factual places to get info out there after you weed through the left wing and right wing propaganda.

ideology?

LOL. how about a deep belief in capitalism and the power of the private sector to work it out to the benefit of the consumer

I share the same ideology. And if we were allowed to have a capitalist style economy in all industries... that would be wonderful. We aren't, and so we can't. Companies have gotten too large and branched out into too many different industries under the same corporate umbrella through DEREGULATION. And it's been allowed to happen through deregulation. Once companies get large enough it is almost impossible to have a startup succeed and give true competition to the current monopoly company/companies.

[gwb72tii]

George Ill make sure you block all your content when this bill passes, its only a fair capitalist endeavor if I have the money to do it right? You'll just have to attempt to find a competitor, which is unlikely considering the three major ISP's make it a point to not interfere in eachothers playgrounds so they can price hike without delivering any more service.

Im pretty sure at this point george is one of those crazies that walks into the library wearing tin foil just to use the library computers to shitpost online.

yes less regulation means less content, right?

BTW - you and I probably agree on more issues surrounding the internet than we disagree on, and also on the recent tax bill.

The tax bill raises deficit spending unproductively. The USA doesn't invest in itself. I'd give up my tax reduction to see the federal government do something useful if it's going to spend more than it takes in, like laying a country-wide fiber optic grid we can all access, where we might actually have competition among ISP's.

[Wschnitz]

ideology?

LOL. how about a deep belief in capitalism and the power of the private sector to work it out to the benefit of the consumer

George Ill make sure you block all your content when this bill passes, its only a fair capitalist endeavor if I have the money to do it right? You'll just have to attempt to find a competitor, which is unlikely considering the three major ISP's make it a point to not interfere in eachothers playgrounds so they can price hike without delivering any more service.

Im pretty sure at this point george is one of those crazies that walks into the library wearing tin foil just to use the library computers to shitpost online.

[gwb72tii]

ideology?

LOL. how about a deep belief in capitalism and the power of the private sector to work it out to the benefit of the consumer

[z31maniac]

^This is what happens when you're a slave to ideology.

[Wschnitz]

yes, we absolutely need the federal government regulating the internet. I mean it hasn't worked very well so far.

i'm waiting for Amazon to offer free high speed with Prime membership. I'm also sure that federal regulation will kill that idea.

???

Ignoring that you still don't know what you are talking about, how is having corporations regulate the market by stifling competition better? Did you miss the part where they said they need to be the ones to write the laws? Did you miss the part pre 2014, 2010, and 2005? Where ISP's blocked VOIP programs, P2P traffic, and streaming websites in favor of their own services?

I really wish you guys would just not talk about this if you have no idea what you are talking about. Its hilariously sad, the only competition and innovation that was stifled was ISP's ability to give us Cable 2.0 in the form of internet.

[z31maniac]

yes, we absolutely need the federal government regulating the internet. I mean it hasn't worked very well so far.

i'm waiting for Amazon to offer free high speed with Prime membership. I'm also sure that federal regulation will kill that idea.

Yes, it worked well because it essentially was regulated but at the state and local level through monopolies.

This idea that there is competition in ISP providers is beyond bizarre to me.

[gwb72tii]

yes, we absolutely need the federal government regulating the internet. I mean it hasn't worked very well so far.

i'm waiting for Amazon to offer free high speed with Prime membership. I'm also sure that federal regulation will kill that idea.